In the case of Doe v. Taylor ISD I feel the primary issue was the claim of immunity by Eddy Lankford and Mike Caplinger. In this case Jane Doe was being sexually molested by a teacher in the High School. It seems Lankford, who was principal, had heard the complaints of misconduct by the teacher and for whatever reason did not follow up on the complaints. Caplinger, who at the time was Superintindent, had not been working at Taylor ISD for very long addressed the situation as soon as he heard of it.
The district court denied immunity to both defendants, however the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed the immunity ruling for Caplinger because the action started before he was hired. Lankford was found to be negligent in his supervisory duties.
I think the case definitely has compelling interest because of the individual rights of a teacher involved in sexual misconduct. I think the rights of the student were violated by the teacher and the principal.
I agree with the decision of the court. Based on the fact the principal took no action when he knew the misconduct was happening. Since the Superintendent was new and did not know what was going on he should not have been punished.
I would say this will fall into Domain 1.3 based on conduct, ethical principals,and procedures of an educator in compliance to The Code of Ethics and Standard Practices for Texas Educators.
SHOOTER
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Law 509
Tarleton
Fortworth cohort
Doe v Taylor
(Rumrunner)
In the year 2008 if you chase every accusation of sexual misconduct by a teenage you will be in the full time business of investigating and not managing. We have raised a generation of "Waa...Waaa...Waaa, I'll sue! in response to any and everything. Teens sling accusations and rumor to get their way on a constant basis. We raised them that way with our attitudes A fight on the playground is not a fight "Its Asult" a bump of two cars in the parking lot is not a little accident, its a reason to file a "false insurance claim" we trained these little monsters now we have to live with them.
That being said, Any and all suspicions of misconduct specifically those which could endanger the safety of the students must not be dismissed!!! As a leader you have a responsibility to make a safe environment for the students as well as the teachers in your school. The Principal was negligent in this regard. If the Super. had any knowledge of this activity and did nothing I do not care when he started, if he had knowledge and choose to do nothing he was equally negligent and maybe even to a greater extreme as it is his district and ultimately his "Caplingers" responsibility to make sure all is well on his watch!!!
by: kido5150
First off I want to say tht I read up on this case from: http://www.wabsa.com/pdfs/TSALD_LeadArticle9-01.pdf
and make references to it in my responses.
I agree with SHOOTER in that I agree with the Court decisiont hat the Techer and Principal violated the rights of Jane Doe because: "...schoolchildren have a liberty interest in their bodily integrity that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment..." (taken from the above mentioned website).
I do not think that the Supt. should be help liable as he took action and began to investigate the rumors (even though it didn't prove anything).
I agree with RUMRUNNER in that any claim made by a student against an emplyee/faculty, etc should be investigated (I think that until the investigation is completed, it should lean toward the student as a precaution).
I disagree with RUMRUNNER because the Supt. did investigate. When he questioned them, both Stroud and Jane Doe denied any involvement... the Supt.'s investigation did not reveal any misconduct. The Princiapl had heard stories/rumors and did not even attempt to check into them. He was wrong in not trying to provide a safe environment on his campus.
comment by ironman25
I am in agreement with the blogger due to the fact that the principal was proven to have done nothing in regards to the issue at hand when he received information about the situation between the student and the teacher. In the case of the superintendent, I also agree that even though he was new to the district, he should have been exonerated due to the fact that when he received information he did investigate even though he might not have been as thourough as he should have. The question of the courts to prove in the case was whether the principal and the superintendent were deliberately indifferent during the process. I also agree with the findings of the court in that the principal was found to be deliberately indiffernent due to the fact that he did nothing during the time the situation was going on under his watch. The ruling on the superintendent I also feel was just due to he did investigate to a degree on all occurances he received information.
How this case could apply to work is simple as a school leader, the allegations of sexual misconduct by a teacher should be investigated when information is presented to you. It is your responsibility to provide a safe school environment as a school leader and this type of situation is not something to take lightly, especially during this day and age of education.
I definitly agree with Shooter in this case. Every child has a right to an education without the pressure of an authority figure abusing them sexually. The principal knew what was going on and didn't do anything. I bet if the shoe was on the other foot and this was the principals daughter he would have done something. To me this case deals with ethics and common sense. As an educator is it ethical to have sexual relations with your student, much less a minor? It's not legal why would it be ethical.
I do agree with the court finding the principal negligent in his duties. Once the issue was brought to his attention, he did nothing. The superintendent acted on behalf of the student as soon as he found out.
I do agree with rumrunner that we have raised a society of consistent whiners and file suiters. Everyone is looking for easy money these days, and crying law suit is easy.
With that being said, we do still have to lean on the side of the student whenever any type of abuse is in question.
This case applies to my work pure and simple, report what you know. Take care of business and if not, you are going to be headed for a law suit. Sadly enough every adminstrator will deal with this type of issue at one point in thier adminstration.
doglover
kay82:
I agree with the blogger and the findings of the court. The principal should have been held accountable for his "lack of action". It seems that the principal knew that the teacher was very "friendly" with the female population. He should have taken action on the teacher earlier. Considering that the superintendent was new to the district and was unaware of the situation, he should not have been held accountable. Once he heard of the situation, he did start an investigation. This at least shows that he took an administrative stand on the situation.
In my school, I need to make sure that every situation that arises I need to start a full investigation right away. The superintendent needs to be notified immediately. There is no place in the education system for these kind of acts. Students come to school to find a safe environment and that is what they should get.
EDAD509
sucram54:
I totally agree with Shooter, because a primary duty of a Principal is to provide and safe environment to all children and staff. The main question to be answered is whether the Principal handled the situation appropriately or if he was negligent. The principal did not follow protocal when it comes to this situation. Obviously, the Super came in on the tail end of this situation, and did conduct his own inquiry to find out what actions needed to take place. I liked rumrunner's comment about children today irresponsibly calling wolf. I think with todays technology, a child can witness many adult topics if not properly monitored.
I think this topic definitely relates to our jobs as principals. More than anything, it shows what links we probably need to go to in order to protect both student and/or teacher. Personally, I would probably make sure something was in writing or consult higher powers, especially with a sensitive subject like sexual misconduct. Plus, I think this shows that not doing anything/not enough can be just as bad as the wrong decision.
I figured Dr. Luke would test our compelling interest or conduct a lemon test...... but negligence was the obvious factor in this case.
~Belle~
I am gong to have to partly agree and disagree with “Shooter”. Doe’s 14th Amendment Rights were violated on the premise that sexaual abuse from a school employee violates her rights to “due process” and “equal protection”. Yes, Principal Lankford should have been held accountable for not taking appropriate action. I also think that Superintendent Caplinger should be held liable. He, in fact, was the Superintendent during some of the time period in which these horrific actions took place. From my understanding he may have taken some action to resolve the issue, but failed to follow through with meetings with concerned parents involving their complaints. So that leads to my question, “What about the Superintendent that was in Taylor prior to Caplinger. Should he fit into the equation?”
It also concerns me that so many faculty and community members new of these interactions with Doe and Stroud but never called and discussed this with Doe’s parents. A year had almost passed before her parent’s just happened to find photos and a card from him.
As administrators it is our duty to protect our students from any form of harm.
Action must be taken and carried thorugh immedialty even if it is just suspicion or hearsay.
I agree with the blogger and the findings of the court.
The superintendent at least attempted to investigate even if it wasn't very thorough and in my opinion that is what allows him immunity. I don't think it really matters that it started before he was employed there but that as soon as he heard about it he took action. "Deliberate indifference does not apply here since he did some investigation.
The principal on the other hand knew of the possible misconduct and did nothing. In my opinion, this is an excellent example of "deliberate indifference." It is my understanding that the law doesn't require administrators to do a thorough investigation but simply to do something. By doing nothing, the principal allowed a possible dangerous situation to continue and did not attempt to protect this student's right to a safe school environment.
The lesson learned here is: always investigate allegations especially those which indicate a possible danger to someone. The law only requires a simple investigation but I think morally we have an obligation to conduct a thorough investigation, especially in cases like this one.
Hunt74
APA1906:
I do not totally agree with the blogger. I do not believe the super was guiltless. When he instructed Lankford to speak with Stoud after receiving the report that he was sitting with the young ladies at the basketball game, he should have followed up. He promised to convene a meeting of all the parties involved. (Doe's, Lankford, Stroud) That meeting never took place. The case said that it was well-known that Stroud and Doe had some type of relationship. So as the leader of the district I would think that this is a direct reflection on your district and you. So I guess I agree with the district court's ruling, denying them both immunity.
Whenever, there is an accusation of this magnitude on my campus i would hope that my administration and myself would want to do the legwork early and find it to be true or false and take the appropriate measures before we have to go to court or speak with a lawyer.
comment by Tiffany
I agree with doglover in that the principal should hold the most liability in this case. As an educator it is not only our ethical duty, but also our legal duty to investigate and report any type of abuse to a student. We are not just educators, but also advocates for the wellbeing of every student.
As for the superintendent, I also agree with the court's decision. He took action as soon as he was made aware of the matter.
Although I agree that students may generate many false accusations, it is still our duty to follow up on each of them. Who are we to be judge and jury?
Sadly, I have seen several of these types of cases. Most of which have had findings in favor of the student, but a couple that did not. I personally know one of the students and know how it has impacted her life.....even after high school.
Our jobs as administrators are very tough. We need to remember why we do what we do.......kids!
Trout Fish
My first reaction to the case is disgust. How could anyone in an authority position take advantage of a student and the district have knowledge of wrong doing and actually do nothing. Where are the ethics in that?
I agree with the blogger in regards to the assessment about the superintendent being new and investigating once he had knowledge of the misconduct and being granted immunity. I also agree with the blogger about the principal violating the rights of the student. A student has a right to be able to attend a school that provides for a safe environment. That was definietly not provided. I also agree with the blogger about there being a code of ethics. A principal is suppose to model and promote the highest standard of conduct, ethical principals, and integrity and in this case it definetly was lacking. The principal failed to do so; therefore, I agree with the courts in handing down their decision.
As an administrator, this is a hard lesson to learn because there is so much gossip and revengeful behavoir that takes place on campus. How do you know what is valid and what is not, but I think the case brought out the importance of investigating anytime there are acquisations of miscondut.
by: guilo10
I agree with the blogger; that agreed with the courts decision. The right of the student was definately violated. However, I also agree with Shooter. I believe that everyone is 'sue happy'.
In this case I believe that he Teacher and Principal was negligent. I agree with Rumrunner that the superintent was prior to his position. Schools should be a safe environment for all, and it sure wasn't for Jane Doe!
This case has relavance to today because of all of the accusations of misconduct between teacher/student relationships. Defianately, everyone should take this case into consideration as a knowledge. As an administrators we have to really know our campuses, and as kido5150 said, "investigate any suspicious activity or humors that come to pass. I agree with doglover that we will all as administrators with probably have to deal with some sort of aligations like this one.
The blogger is correct in agreeing with the court. The principal was negligent in reporting activity he knew to be illegal and unethical. The Catholic Church is going through something similar to this when those in the hierarchy know these heinous activities are going on yet turn a blind eye to them. The superintendent in this case did the right thing by reporting it as soon as he wasa aware of the impropriety.
As an principal I must take action on all things that occur in my building to maje sure all students are treated equally.
Trout Fish, I couldn't agree with you more. As educators and administrators we are entrusted with a huge responsibility. We are to conduct ourselves to a higher set of ethics as a result of our position. We are role models whether we like it or not. Even the faintest rumor of sexual misconduct on campus should be a signal for action. The agressiveness of the action should be at the discresion of the administrator. Ramrunner has a good point about our "sue-happy" country and teens have been known to fabricate stories, so immediate dismissal of an accused educator is not appropriate. False accusations can be harmful to innocent parties.
Consistency and fairness are the key. And if you are to err, err on the side of the kiddos. It is safer that way.
The case was settled before going to court, but I agree with the findings of the court. The administrator's inaction under the circumstances left him at fault. Removal of the superintendent's name from the case was appropriate, because he was a latecomer to the event and behaved appropriately when faced with the issue.
As administrators, we can not dismiss any rumors, however small, if it endagers our students.
Post a Comment